Talley Cross: Another Raving Feminist

Talley’s choice of words indicate that she has embraced the Feminist lingo: “poison of male supremacy;” “an ideology that ultimately privileges men over women”. Such language obfuscates the facts that women historically are honored in the Church and in the Anglican Way. Our oldest churches have chapels dedicated to the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos. It can be argued that the whole Bible is the story of God working out the promise he made to the Woman in Genesis 3:15 that the incarnate Seed/Son of God would crush the serpent’s head.

We receive word of that promise from Jesus’ Hebrew ancestors. Feminists claim that the Hebrew had a patriarchal social structure. An anthropological study of the social structure of the biblical Hebrew reveals that feminists are willfully perpetuating a lie. Or perhaps they really are that ignorant?

Feminists argue that the Hebrew had a strict patriarchal society and that any message coming from such a society should be viewed with suspicion. Though the Hebrew priesthood was restricted to males, the social structure of the biblical Hebrew was not a strict patriarchy. Unlike the patriarchal structures of Greek and Roman societies it exhibited a remarkable balance of authority between males and females.

Because feminists insist on reading the Bible through a template of oppression, they miss the male-female balance found in Scripture that they should be proclaiming for the edification of women in the Church. There are many examples: the distinct duties/responsibilities of the mother’s house versus the father’s house; male prophets-female prophets; male rulers-female rulers; inheritance by male heirs-inheritance by female heirs, patrilocal residence-matrilocal residence; Hebrew patronymics-Hebrew matronymics; and in the Hebrew double unilineal descent pattern, both the patrilineage and the matrilineage are recognized and honored, but in different ways.

Deborah at her palm tree between Ramah and Bethel (Judg. 4:5) exercised the same authority as the Moreh at his “diviner’s oak” between Ai and Bethel (Judg. 9:37, cf. Gen. 12:6).

The biblical narratives also reflect a male-female balance. The blood symbolism of the Passover associated with Moses has a parallel in the blood symbolism of the scarlet cord associated with Rahab. Consider the two occasions when death passed over. Moses’ people were saved when they put the blood of the lamb on the doors. Rahab’s household was saved when she hung a scarlet cord from her window.

The abusive behavior of drunken Noah toward his sons has a parallel in the abusive behavior of drunken Lot toward his daughters. Their behavior causes trouble for their children. Noah curses his son and/or grandson. Lot impregnates his daughters.

There is gender balance in the New Testament narratives also. At the presentation of Jesus in the Temple His identity as Messiah is affirmed by the priest Simeon and by the prophetess Anna. Jesus restored the widow of Nain’s deceased son to his mother (Luke 7:11-17). Jesus restored Jairus’ deceased daughter to her father (Mark 5:21-43).

No Substance to the claim of Patriarchy

Talley trots out the claim of patriarchy which she fails to substantiate. A true patriarchy is characterized by exclusive male privilege in tracing descent, inheritance, residential arrangements, the right to rule, and ultimate authority. The social structure of the biblical Hebrew is not characterized by these conditions. Neither is the Church. Women are acclaimed as teachers, theologians, missionaries, evangelists, nuns, musicians, parish council members, and voices heard at synods.

Nothing in Talley’s article suggests that she has investigated the historical and cultural realities of our received tradition of the all-male priesthood. Men sacrificed rams and bulls in the temple. Women were not permitted to enter that place. Likewise, women gave birth in chambers which men were not permitted to enter. Here we have two types of “blood work” and both speak of life, but in different ways. This is the biblical understanding of the different calling of men and women, not the egalitarianism Talley seeks to impose on the Church.

Talley draws on Dr. William Witt’s book Icons of Christ to justify the ordination of women to the priesthood. Sadly, that book does great damage to the priesthood. Dr. Witt reduces the priesthood to a ministerial role only, and since all Christians are to be in ministry, why not women? He misses the critical point that the priesthood is about the Blood.

I served as a priest in the Episcopal Church for 14 years. As I stood at the altar I sometimes felt as if I were wearing someone else’s shoes. My doubts about women’s ordination launched me into a ten-year study of that dangerous innovation. I drew on my background in anthropology and philosophy. I noted that no women served as priests in our received tradition. Likewise, men did not serve as midwives. This suggested that men and women have distinct types of blood work: the priests in the place of blood sacrifice where women were forbidden to enter, and the woman in the birthing chamber where men were forbidden to enter. Two types of blood work in two distinct places and the two were always maintained apart.

This is a sacred mystery at odds with the world. It is the mystery of the Word made flesh, the High Priest who offers Himself as the sacrifice, the God-man who brings life to the world through His blood work. C.S. Lewis touches on the mystery in his treatise “Priestess in the Church?” He writes, “With the Church, we are farther in for there we are dealing with male and female not merely as facts of nature but as the live and awful shadows of realities utterly beyond our control and largely beyond our direct knowledge. Or rather, we are not dealing with them but (as we shall soon learn if we meddle) they are dealing with us.”

END

TALLEY CROSS: ANOTHER RAVING FEMINIST

EXCLUSIVE REPORT

By Alice C. Linsley
Special to Virtueonline
www.virtueonline.org
June 5, 2023

Talley Cross is an angry woman as is evident in the tone of her article “Male Supremacy: Examining a Distortion in the Anglican Church”. She considers the sacred tradition of the all-male priesthood “idolatry,” and she likens the tradition to slavery. She regards the opposition to women priests as “sexism.” These are the classic assertions of radical Feminism.

You can read her “Male Supremacy: Examining a Distortion in the Anglican Church” here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/fleshofmyflesh/2023/05/male-supremacy-examining-a-distortion-in-the-anglican-church/